Search results

No, the universal true moral axiom would be that each couple of parents has an obligation to raise their child. These things can have variables, wildcards and conditional branching, you know. Not that I necessarily agree with the idea that a moral principle must be universally valid. There can...

Why not? I can myself come up with arguments for that claim, but I'd like to see yours. Just a bald statement like that is not enough.

I think I'll share some of my own musings, here. This. Back in the Middle Ages when medieval thinkers were developing their political philosophy, feudalism and monarchy were what they knew. So much of their ideas presupposed it as the default form of government, rather than as one of many...

It's bad enough to have the death penalty for arbitrary, trivial things. Even worse for someone to be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner at his sole discretion.

Also, in at least some parts of Europe, a peasant was not allowed to leave his village and go live somewhere else without the permission of his lord.

I'd like to share an inspirational quote I just saw here.

Well, sadly often nowadays only one of the two people is.

Well... I think there's some false alternatives there. Let's start with "an individual cannot exist without society" - "society" is an ideologically loaded term. I would prefer to say that people cannot usually exist without community. Which is not the same thing. I think I read somewhere that...

I feel that what's missing here is a clear definition of what is intended by "Individualism". That word has a range of meaning. Please don't assume that we all already know what you mean.